EVANGELICAL to emphasize the Gospel of Jesus Christ. CATHOLIC to embody that emphasis.

Some thoughts on “same-sex marriage”

I find the decision of Judge Walker in the gay marriage case overturning CA Prop 8 to be disappointing and disconcerting, but unsurprising. His opinion seems to lack objectivity and includes a “finding of fact” which attacks religious groups that hold homosexual actions to be sinful as bigoted. On the one hand, the potential implications and ramifications of such a ruling are staggering and frightening. On the other hand, charges of bigotry are to a certain extent understandable. Christians have long failed, and egregiously so, to love the sinner and correct the sin when it comes to the issue of homosexuality. Nevertheless, warranted or not, the claims of the judge may spell trouble for religious freedom in the U.S.

On the issue of same-sex marriage itself, it seems to me that its legalization is nigh inevitable and has been so for some time. In his encyclical Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI offered prophetic warnings about the consequences of the widespread use of contraceptives. For example,

. In 1988, Janet E. Smith noted that all the prophecies contained in “Humanae Vitae” had been fulfilled. The encyclical predicted that:

• The widespread use of contraceptives would lead to conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality;

• “The man” will lose respect for “the woman” and “no longer (care) for her physical and psychological equilibrium” and will come to “the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion”;

• The widespread acceptance of contraception would place a dangerous weapon in the hands of public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies; and

• It would lead men (and women especially) to think they had absolute and unlimited dominion over their bodies.

Indeed the separation of the unitive and procreative aspects of marriage and the nuptial act has had disastrous consequences. Same-sex marriage can be seen as another one of these consequences. The institution of marriage is no longer understood to be what it actually is. Judge Walker wrote that marriage is

“a couple’s choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one another, and to form a household based on their own feelings about one another, and their agreement to join in an economic partnership and support one another in terms of the material needs of life.”

Jennifer Roback Morse, to whom I have linked above, responds to the above by asking:

How would this definition exclude college roommates? Not only does this definition include nothing about children, it includes nothing even about marriage being a sexual relationship, and certainly nothing about permanence, nothing about sexual exclusivity, nothing about connecting the generations to one another.

After all, marriage is essentially about joining a man and woman together for the sake of their children and for the sake of each other. This requires permanence and fidelity. Sadly however, the working definition of marriage has long since ceased to be such. And in fact, defenders of “traditional” marriage now have little ground to stand on. If we were serious about fighting same-sex marriage, then we should have been fighting no-fault divorce more seriously. At this point, in the public eye, there is little left for us to defend.

So…what are our options?

Realistically, I think same-sex marriage will be legalized. If that is the case, a clear distinction should be made (legally and otherwise) between civil unions and sacramental marriages. On the Church’s part, parishes should more firmly and uniformly insist that couples being married live as if they recognize the sanctity and dignity of marriage and its sign-value. On the government’s part, tax breaks should be reserved for marriages that produce children and that last, (although I could see certain exceptions). These are the marriages which a government should want to encourage.

Frankly, I don’t like this compromise, but since our society no longer acts in accord with the institution of marriage in which we believe, it is unlikely that said society will respect the integrity of that institution. Judge Walker’s definition of marriage, while incomplete, is probably closer to how many people see marriage; even if they wouldn’t use those words, they act in accord with it. And on those grounds, there is little or no reason to exclude homosexuals from such unions.

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

I have many reactions to what happened in California. I do think first and foremost, we must recognize the state we live in is a non-Christian state, and as such, we cannot expect its definitions will be in accord with Christianity. And for this reason, I do think the Church needs to promote from within its own understanding of the sacrament of marriage, and to really investigate it further. Much of what we see, though now gone into the secular and unchristian world, still seems to be the end product of that confusion. Once the church can get a more comprehensive and consistent understanding, and promote it from within, it will be better equipped to deal with the secular confusion.

An example where this confusion can be found can be seen in my post and subsequent debate about divorce and remarriage; of course I was offering what I think would be the way forward (which is the Orthodox way) and presenting a way to understand it, but in the process one can see the general confusion as to what is and is not marriage (and where it can be found): http://vox-nova.com/2010/07/01/divorce-and-remarriage-a-speculative-pastoral-solution/

Good post. There is no other way to communicate with people like this judge than to let them see that it is about providing a stable environment for children. That is in the state’s interest. Sex and love are not in the state’s mandate, so to speak, but ensuring a future tax-base is. To speak of homosexual acts as disordered is irrelevant to a judge, to politicians, etc. The focus should be on the fact that traditional families provide political and economic growth and stability like nothing else. I don’t need the state’s blessing for how I live my life, but the tax benefits help a family that has only one wage-earner. To transfer the same economic consideration to a homosexual union is a travesty and actually hurts the real family because it transfers the social benefits they require to those who do not require them. This is an attack on women and children really, since the tax status of families has always been aimed at helping them.

Good post. The judge definitely had a conflict of interest and should have recused himself since it is self-evident that he was biased in his judging of the case.

I still think that there is a chance of stopping “gay marriage” from being instituted. First, I don’t think that ones sexual relationship should be the criteria as to whether or not a person/s to receives the types of benefits the gay community consider to be “rights”. Second, While I am adamountly opposed to “gay marriage” I do think that civil unions would be okay. Civil unions would give the homosexuals the benefits and “rights” they want without distorting or perverting the meaning of marriage.

The acceptance and widespread use of contraceptives, especially amongst married Christians (Catholic and non-Catholic) has basically made any defense of the sacrament a joke in the secular view. A contracepted Christian marriage between a man and a woman is essentially the same thing as a gay “marriage”. The parties are merely making their relationship with the object they like to use for orgasmic pleasure seem official and accepted as “good” in the eyes of their peers. As long as Christians contracept, they don’t even really have an argument against men who want to marry small boys so that abusing them gains some sort of acceptance, or men and women who want to marry their pets that they like to have sex with.

So, it is interesting that you began by speaking of Humanae Vitae. You’re dead on.

I am not here to state who is going to hell or who is righteous or not. I am here to ask this question: why are homosexuals so bent on calling what they want “marriage”? First, from its origin, marriage does not reflect the model that the homosexual community is presenting—-the same gender being joined as life partners. Second, the concept of “marriage” is a biblical endeavor whose standard is set with the first man and woman.

Marriage is meant to reflect the relationship between GOD and his creation; displaying the love, provision and interaction that He communicates along with man’s role as expected to show gratitude as well as reciprocating love and interaction is only part of what’s to be mirrored. Also, in a marriage, commonly, it is rightfully assumed that a couple will reproduce or “procreate” which furthers this reflection of the marriage mirroring GOD’s dealings with man whereas GOD “creates”. Even in a case where a man and a woman are joined and cannot (whether the problem lies in the man or the woman physically) procreate it at least has the appearance of the possibility of procreation.

The pretentious petition for “same sex marriage” is an attempt to make a mockery of faith and of its essence is to Edge God Out! Marriage holds for mankind a reminder that GOD is a Great Creator, in fact, the Creator of all things. Every time a child is born it is a reminder of the awesomeness of creation. Life is first in the man delivered to the woman for her to carry for a hopeful 9 months. This is why we call GOD a “He”, not because He has gender in His Spirit form but because He “is the first cause of a thing”. A homosexual couple cannot represent this possibility which is why it would be redefining “marriage” to ultimately become something that is not Marriage at all.

It is evident to me that the attempt of the homosexual community is indeed pretentious. I firmly believe that those for “same sex marriage” have set out to “DESTIGMATIZE” homosexuality and are on a quest to normalize its lifestyle. In doing this they are doing to others what they don’t appreciate having done to them; they are disregarding the faith, convictions and a wholesome societal paradigm for a selfish behavioral cause AS homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR and not an ETHNICITY. Though I am not for same sex unions at all, I ask, why not call it something else if these attempts to legalize such unions have no ulterior motives?

We must continue to argue from a faith perspective but we need to become more wise than “blunt”. Simply saying “Adam & Eve and not Adam & Steve” doesn’t cut it anymore.

We must take the position to meanings and definitions.

Marriage by definition means to take two separate and complimenting components and merging or blending them. Testosterone and testosterone don’t merge neither do they compliment one another. A lamp isn’t complimented by a lamp but by a bulb. A plug isn’t complimented by a plug but by a socket outlet. To compliment something is to bring something to the table that the first component does not possess of its own; this is illustrated when you try to connect “north and north” or “south and south” poles of a magnet-it doesn’t work!

If you were covered with necklaces and you added another necklace there would be no complimenting effect. But if you have on a plain black turtleneck sweater and you add something ornamental (something different) then you have complimented the sweater, right?

What the homosexual community is purposing is to change the very “generic” definition of marriage whether from a biblical or none biblical perspective. So then, it cannot [from a terminological standpoint] be consider marriage at all by reason of the noncomplimenting components that are attempted to be joined.

P.S. Let’s stop calling it “Gay” which means Happy and call it as it is “homosexuality”.

Do the authors of this blog refrain from all use of artificial contraception?

I always see conservative Catholic married people with zero or one or two children who promoting the teaching against artificial contraception, and I am left wondering.

If the authors of this blog do refrain from all use artificial contraception, do the authors REALLY see any meaningful different between measuring the time of the woman’s fertility and then not having sex in that time, and enjoying sex during the infertile time when they KNOW that the sex will not be procreative? The pope’s approved “natural contraceptive” method seems really, in essence, the same as the pope’s disapproved “artificial contraceptive,” and I think 99% or more of all people have this reaction.

As soon as one says, “same-sex marriage” one has implicitly conceded to those who seek to pervert marriage. It’s sham marriage that the immoralists such as Judge Walker are demanding that we be forced to pretend is the same as real marriage.

Also the deceptively named “no-fault divorce” is really unilateral divorce.

Words are tools of thought. Keep tools precise or risk spoiling the work to which the tools are applied.